In Oxford Union debates, audience opinion is irrelevant

Vincent Carroll opines that former Gov. Bill Ritter and his partner were “drubbed” in an energy debate at New York University and that, given the obscene salary he is supposed to be making, he should know his stuff better. Surely Mr. Carroll should know his stuff better, too. An Oxford Union-style debate consists of: a proposition; 15 minutes of preparation; five-minute speeches, pro and con; and points of information made at any time. Such debates are adjudicated by trained judges who flow the argument, record the points made, whether they are successfully rebutted and which side won. An audience vote is irrelevant.

Mr. Carroll reports an NYU audience, allegedly predisposed toward Ritter, voted on this debate. Audiences are a fine way of electing an American Idol, but they are bad at judging a debate, even if, unlike Mr. Carroll, they are unbiased.

Richard H. Ellis, Sedalia

This letter was published online only. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Debating at the Oxford Union takes two forms, competitive debating, and chamber debating. I think you were giving us the rules for competitive debating. That wasn’t what this debate was.

Chamber debating, including the debates (known as Public Business Meetings) with invited guest speakers for which the Union is best known, tends to be less formalized (even if more formal) than competitive debates, and the manner of delivery is closer to public speaking, with audience engagement far more important.

Public Business Meeting debates also have voting. At the end of the debate, THE AUDIENCE VOTES on the PROPOSITION by exiting the hall through a door, the right-hand side of which is marked ‘ayes’ and the left-hand side ‘noes’. This follows the style of the British Parliament, which votes this way if it is necessary to “divide the House”.

Better luck next letter Richard. You might want to check your facts before you commit such an egregious error.

Anonymous

By Golly, Goodspkr, that’s a most interesting reply. I’ll have to read about Oxford Union debates and find out more about them.

anderson

Vince Carroll took it to the bottom from the start, with his one-sided teenage-like reference to Ritter being “drubbed”–equivalent to current sports media jargon about “smack downs”. In this teenage-like view, someone getting beaten, rather than the quality of what someone said, is the most salient feature of the story. And note how many additional drubs Carroll heaps on Ritter:

Mr. Ellis points out that an audience’s reaction may be a poor method for measuring the quality of the debate. His point is well taken.

Anonymous

Andy, he did get “drubbed.” Before the debate 46% of the audience supported the idea that “green” energy would drive America’s economic recover recovery while 21% opposed it and 33% were undecided. After the debate not only did Ritter not convert any of the undecideds, he lost 3% of his supporters, while the other side gained 26%. That is a drubbing.

However your last statement, “Mr. Ellis points out that an audience’s reaction may be a poor method for measuring the quality of the debate” is not only NOT a point well taken, it’s simply foolish. This is a political issue which will be decided by all of us in the audience. And the “facts” are stacked against Ritter and the others who believe in “green energy,” as a panacea.

Anonymous

Goodspkr deserves credit for clarifying the nature of Oxford Union debates. As for Vince, he goes ballistic whenever he hears the term “renewable energy”. Sometimes I think Vince still heats his house with coal and cooks on a wood stove. We also know that a debate doesn’t prove whether a proposition is right or wrong. A debate is a test of which side is more persuasive. The Creationists have a number of clever debaters on their side, but that doesn’t prove that evolution is wrong. Unfortunately many scientists are not skilled debaters.

Anonymous

Errr, Richard, you need to brush up on your debating knowledge.

Debating at the Oxford Union takes two forms, competitive debating, and chamber debating. I think you were giving us the rules for competitive debating. That wasn’t what this debate was.

Chamber debating, including the debates (known as Public Business Meetings) with invited guest speakers for which the Union is best known, tends to be less formalized (even if more formal) than competitive debates, and the manner of delivery is closer to public speaking, with audience engagement far more important.

Public Business Meeting debates also have voting. At the end of the debate, THE AUDIENCE VOTES on the PROPOSITION by exiting the hall through a door, the right-hand side of which is marked ‘ayes’ and the left-hand side ‘noes’. This follows the style of the British Parliament, which votes this way if it is necessary to “divide the House”.

Better luck next letter Richard. You might want to check your facts before you commit such an egregious error.

Anonymous

By Golly, Goodspkr, that’s a most interesting reply. I’ll have to read about Oxford Union debates and find out more about them.

anderson

Vince Carroll took it to the bottom from the start, with his one-sided teenage-like reference to Ritter being “drubbed”–equivalent to current sports media jargon about “smack downs”. In this teenage-like view, someone getting beaten, rather than the quality of what someone said, is the most salient feature of the story. And note how many additional drubs Carroll heaps on Ritter:

Mr. Ellis points out that an audience’s reaction may be a poor method for measuring the quality of the debate. His point is well taken.

Anonymous

Andy, he did get “drubbed.” Before the debate 46% of the audience supported the idea that “green” energy would drive America’s economic recover recovery while 21% opposed it and 33% were undecided. After the debate not only did Ritter not convert any of the undecideds, he lost 3% of his supporters, while the other side gained 26%. That is a drubbing.

However your last statement, “Mr. Ellis points out that an audience’s reaction may be a poor method for measuring the quality of the debate” is not only NOT a point well taken, it’s simply foolish. This is a political issue which will be decided by all of us in the audience. And the “facts” are stacked against Ritter and the others who believe in “green energy,” as a panacea.

Anonymous

Goodspkr deserves credit for clarifying the nature of Oxford Union debates. As for Vince, he goes ballistic whenever he hears the term “renewable energy”. Sometimes I think Vince still heats his house with coal and cooks on a wood stove. We also know that a debate doesn’t prove whether a proposition is right or wrong. A debate is a test of which side is more persuasive. The Creationists have a number of clever debaters on their side, but that doesn’t prove that evolution is wrong. Unfortunately many scientists are not skilled debaters.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.